Principled Pedagogical Practices
ELC Teachers strive to exemplify the following pedagogical practices for themselves, their students, and all who may observe their classes.
1. Rely On Course Outcomes
Teachers understand the course outcomes for the skill and proficiency level in which they teach and effectively communicate them to students. They can describe student behaviors that demonstrate these outcomes, and they successfully design classroom-learning activities that help students progress toward achieving them. Teachers engage in ongoing informal and formal assessment activities and provide personalized feedback based on the course outcomes.(e.g., Basturkmen, 2010; Leung, 2012; Richards, 2013).
2. Plan Lessons Effectively
Teachers carefully plan lessons so language development will be optimized during the class period. Teachers plan to incorporate an appropriate number and variety of learning activities that are meaningful and engaging. These activities build incrementally from more simple uses of language to more complex uses that are authentic and communicative. Teachers consider the best ways to ensure that communication of explanations and expectations are clear and concise in order to maximize student language practice. This includes preparing the board or other materials well ahead of class time. Teachers also prepare contingency plans in order to adjust for a variety of unforeseen circumstances and changing student needs. (e.g., Baecher, Farnsworth, & Ediger, 2014; Liyanage, & Bartlett, 2010; Milkova, 2012; Pang, 2016).
3. Optimize Class Time
Teachers feel a sense of urgency about using as much of the classroom time as possible for meaningful language practice. They convey this sense of urgency to their students by starting class on time and by carefully managing activities and transitions in order to maximize communicative language practice. However, rather than rushing through their lessons, teachers skillfully connect activities and ensure that students achieve the needed level of mastery before moving on. They anticipate potential threats to effective use of class time such as problems with technology, excessive student questions, inappropriate student behaviors and so on. Their responses to such challenges are principled and appropriately bring the class back on course. Teachers also end class on time. (e.g., Calderón, Slavin, &, Sánchez, 2011; Murray & Christison, 2010; Rossiter, Derwing, Manimtim, &, Thomson, 2010; Tan, Nabb, Aagard, &, Kim, 2010; Walsh, 2006).
4. Cultivate A Positive Learning Environment
Teachers understand the necessity of a positive learning environment in order to optimize learning. They recognize that positive teacher-student interaction is at the heart of the environment they seek to cultivate. They foster genuine concern for their students and their learning based on principles of respect and trust. They leave personal concerns behind as they plan and teach their classes. They are consistent and equitable in their classroom practices and help students to see how classroom policies and activities facilitate language development. They create a non-threatening learning environment that is cheerful, upbeat, and optimistic. They inspire students to do their best, and they help them experience the joy of effectively applying what they learn. They sincerely praise students and regularly express confidence in their abilities. (e.g., Brown, 2006; Oxford, 1999; Tsiplakides, & Keramida, 2010; Tsui, 1996; Young, 1991).
5. Evaluate Learning Effectively
Teachers are committed to the ongoing evaluation of student learning. They skillfully use diagnostic tests, classroom instruction, language practice, and formal and informal assessments to clarify individual learner needs in relation to established course outcomes. They also regularly solicit qualitative input from their students regarding learning materials and methods. This information is then used to make appropriate adjustments in lesson planning and the selection of materials and methods used in the classroom. Teachers help students to understand the rationale for adjustments that are made as well as areas where continuity may be necessary. (e.g., Abedi, 2010; Bailey & Heritage, 2014; Clark, 2012; Frey, Schmitt, &, Allen, 2012; Ketabi, & Ketabi, 2014; McMillan, 2013).
6. Utilize Homework Strategically
Teachers understand the potential for effective homework to help students achieve course outcomes. Rather than assigning busy work, they carefully consider the quantity and specific kinds of learning activities that are needed by their students in order to foster language development or to help them better understand and diagnose learner needs. They are able to effectively communicate the rationale for various types of homework to their students. They demonstrate the value of the homework in the way they follow up and process the homework. They know when it may be appropriate to review certain types of homework in class and when the class time should be used for other activities. They utilize student performance on homework to inform their ongoing instruction in the classroom. (e.g., Gershenson, & Holt, 2015; Maltese, Tai, &, Fan, 2012; McReynolds, 2010; Walberg, Paschal, & Weinstein, 1985; Wallinger, 2008).
7. Provide Meaningful And Timely Feedback
Teachers know that feedback is essential to effective learning. They regularly provide students with feedback that is meaningful—it focuses on the most important language elements for each learner; students understand the feedback, why it was given, and how to apply it. Though teachers ensure that ongoing feedback is timely, they are careful not to overload the students’ cognitive ability to process and apply the feedback. Along with feedback, teachers provide students with abundant opportunities to practice and apply the feedback in a variety of learning contexts.(e.g., Fordham, 2015; Authors, 2010; Su & Tian, 2016).
8. Exemplify Professionalism
Teachers value and participate in orientations, training, and workshops. They are well prepared, punctual, and complete all administrative tasks on time. They act and look the part of a professional in the classroom including adhering to the dress and grooming standards and maintaining appropriate teacher-student boundaries. They are respectful and courteous with their students and other teachers with whom they share resources such as classrooms, offices, technologies, and learning materials. They consistently evaluate their own teaching and seek to improve through feedback from students, administrators, and peers. They appropriately apply the relevant feedback they receive. (e.g., Alsalahi, 2015; Farrell, 2015; Lorimer, & Schulte, 2012; Orlich, Harder, Trevisan, Brown, &, Miller, 2016; Sawyer, Andzik, Kranak, Willke, Curiel, Hensley, & Neef, 2017; Vu, 2016).
References
Abedi, J. A. M. A. L. (2010). Research and recommendations for formative assessment with English language learners. Handbook of formative assessment, 181-197.
ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. White Plains, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153–166.
Alsalahi, S. M. (2015). Stages of teacher's professionalism: how are English language teachers engaged? Theory and Practice in language studies, 5(4), 671.
American Statistical Association (2014). ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment. April 8. http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf
Arthur, L. (2009). From performativity to professionalism: lecturers’ responses to student feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 441-454.
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 480-506.
Bălan, C. (2012). NET PROMOTER SCORE: KEY METRIC OF CUSTOMER LOYALTY. Quality-Access to Success, 13.
Ballantyne, R., Borthwick, J., & Packer, J. (2000). Beyond student evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 221–236.
Bamber, V., & Anderson, S. (2012). Evaluating learning and teaching: institutional needs and individual practices. International Journal for Academic Development, 17, 5-18
Basturkmen, H. (2010). Designing Courses in English for Specific Purposes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benavot, A., & Tanner, E. (2007). The growth of national learning assessments in the world, 1995-2006. Background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2008: Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? UNESCO.
Bendle, N. T., & Bagga, C. K. (2016). The metrics that marketers muddle. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 73.
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 17(1), 48-62.
Boraie, D. (2014). Nine Features of an Effective Teacher Evaluation System [Blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://blog.tesol.org/nine-features-of-an-effective-teacher-evaluation-system/
Braine, G. (Ed.). (2013). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson ESL.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
Cashin, W.E., & Downey, R.G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 563-572.
Charters, W. W. & Waples, D. (1929). The commonwealth Teacher-Training Study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 71–88.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205-249.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63(s1), 52-67.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Dresel, M., & Rindermann, H. (2011). Counseling university instructors based on student evaluations of their teaching effectiveness: A multilevel test of its effectiveness under consideration of bias and unfairness variables. Research in Higher Education, 52, 717-737.
Edström, K. (2008). Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. Higher education research & development, 27(2), 95-106.
Farrell, T. S. (2015). It’s not who you are! It’s how you teach! Critical competencies associated with effective teaching. RELC Journal, 46(1), 79-88.
Fordham, S. K. (2015). Teacher and peer written feedback in the ESL composition classroom: Appropriation, stance, and authorship. The University of Arizona.
Frey, B. B., Schmitt, V. L., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 17(2).
Gershenson, S., & Holt, S. B. (2015). Gender gaps in high school students’ homework time. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 432-441.
Golding, C., & Adam, L. (2016). Evaluate to improve: useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 1-14.
Hamilton, D. F., Lane, J. V., Gaston, P., Patton, J. T., MacDonald, D. J., Simpson, A. H. R. W., & Howie, C. R. (2014). Assessing treatment outcomes using a single question. Bone Joint J, 96(5), 622-628.
Hendry, G. D., Lyon, P. M., & Henderson‐Smart, C. (2007). Teachers' approaches to teaching and responses to student evaluation in a problem‐based medical program. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 143-157.
Hill, H., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384.
Howard, A., & Donaghue, H. (2105). Teacher evaluation in second language education. New York: Bloomsbury.
Hunt, K., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. L. (2016). Teacher Evaluation: Done to You or with You? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87, 21-27.
Kember, D., Leung, D., & Kwan, K. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 411–425.
Ketabi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2014). Classroom and formative assessment in second/foreign language teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 435.
Kinney, W. C. (2005). A simple and valuable approach for measuring customer satisfaction. Otolaryngology-Head and neck surgery, 133(2), 169-172.
Kristensen, K., & Eskildsen, J. (2011, September). Is the net promoter score a reliable performance measure? In Quality and Reliability (ICQR), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 249-253). IEEE.
Krol, M. W., Boer, D., Delnoij, D. M., & Rademakers, J. J. (2015). The Net Promoter Score–an asset to patient experience surveys? Health Expectations, 18(6), 3099-3109.
Lang, J. W. B., & Kersting, M. (2007). Regular feedback from student ratings of instruction: Do college teachers improve their ratings in the long run? Instructional Science, 35, 187–205.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 3rd edition-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford university press.
Leisen Pollack, B., & Alexandrov, A. (2013). Nomological validity of the Net Promoter Index question. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(2), 118-129.
Leung, C. (2012). Outcomes-based language teaching. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Language Teaching (161-179). New York: Cambridge University.
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. J. (2010). From autopsy to biopsy: A metacognitive view of lesson planning and teacher trainees in ELT. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1362-1371.
Lorimer, C., & Schulte, J. (2012). Reimagining TESOL Professionalism: The Graduate Student Perspective. CATESOL Journal, 23, 31-44.
Maltese, A. V., Tai, R. H., & Fan, X. (2012). When is homework worth the time? Evaluating the association between homework and achievement in high school science and math. The High School Journal, 96, 52-72.
Mandal, P. C. (2014). Net promoter score: a conceptual analysis. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 8(4), 209-219.
Mark, J. & Goldberg, M. A. (2001). Multiple regression analysis and mass assessment: A review of the issues. The Appraisal Journal, 89–109.
Martin, R. L. (2011). The innovation catalysts. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 82-87.
Mathis, W. (2012). Research-Based Options for Education Policy Making: Teacher Evaluation. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-options-1-teval_0.pdf
McMillan, J. H. (2013). Classroom Assessment: Pearson New International Edition: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction. Pearson Higher Ed.
McGowan, W. R., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Factors contributing to improved teaching performance. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 161-171.
McReynolds, J. C. (2010). Do Try this at Home: Motivating Second-grade ESL Students to Understand the Importance of Homework Completion to Improve Their Learning (Doctoral dissertation, Gratz College).
Milkova, S. (2012). Strategies for effective lesson planning. Center for Research on learning and Teaching, 1-4.
Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2010). What English language teachers need to know II: facilitating learning. Routledge.
Nasser, F., & Fresko, B. (2001). Interpreting student ratings: Consultation, instructional modification, and attitudes towards course evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 291–305.
National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 § U.S. C. 6301 (2002).
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Trevisan, M. S., Brown, A. H., & Miller, D. E. (2016). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.
Oxford, R.L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58-67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pang, M. (2016). Pedagogical reasoning in EFL/ESL teaching: revisiting the importance of teaching lesson planning in second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 246-263.
Paulsen, M. B. (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 5-18.
Pennington, M. C., & Young, A. L. (1989). Approaches to faculty evaluation for ESL. Tesol Quarterly, 23(4), 619-646.
Penny, A. R., & Coe, R. (2004). Effectiveness of consultation on student ratings feedback: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 215–253.
Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002(93), 5-16.
Reichheld, F. (2006). The Ultimate Question: driving good profits and true growth. Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard business review, 81(12), 46-55.
Reichheld, F. F., & Markey, R. (2011). The Ultimate Question 2.0: How net promoter companies thrive in a customer-driven world. Harvard Business Press.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. Relc Journal, 44(1), 5-33.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G., & Thomson, R. I. (2010). Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 583-606.
Rucinski, M., & Diersling, C. (2014). America’s teacher evaluation system revolution. Harvard Political Review. http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/americas-teacher-evaluation-system-revolution/
Sawchuk, S. (2015). Teacher evaluation: An issue overview. Education Week, 35(3).
Sawyer, M. R., Andzik, N. R., Kranak, M. P., Willke, C. P., Curiel, E. S., Hensley, L. E., & Neef, N. A. (2017). Improving Pre-Service Teachers’ Performance Skills Through Behavioral Skills Training. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1-5.
Shin, T. W., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). The Perceptions of Malaysian Students toward Native and Non-native ESL Teachers. The English Teacher, 46(1), 17.
Simpson, P., & Siguaw, J. (2000). Student evaluations of teaching: An exploratory study of the faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 199–213.
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397-409.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83, 598-642.
Su, T., & Tian, J. (2016). Research on corrective feedback in ESL/EFL classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 439.
Tan, F., Nabb, L., Aagard, S., & Kim, K. (2010). International ESL graduate student perceptions of online learning in the context of second language acquisition and culturally responsive facilitation. Adult Learning, 21(1-2), 9-14.
Thomsen, J. (2014a). A Closer Look: Teacher Evaluations and Reduction-in-Force Policies. Education Commission of the States.
Thomsen, J. (2014b). A Closer Look: Teacher Evaluations and Tenure Decisions. Education Commission of the States.
Thomsen, J. (2014c). Teacher Performance Plays Growing Role in Employment Decisions. Teacher Tenure: Trends in State Laws. Education Commission of the States.
Tsiplakides, I. and Keramida, A. (2010). Promoting positive attitudes in ESL/EFL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, XVI(1).
Tsui, A.B.M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education (pp. 145-167). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lier, L. (2014). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Routledge.
Vu, M. T. (2016). The kaleidoscope of English language teacher professionalism: A review analysis of traits, values, and political dimensions. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(2), 132-156.
Walberg, H.J., Paschal, R.A., & Weinstein, T. 1985, 'Homework's Powerful Effects on Learning', Educational Leadership, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 76-79.
Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. H. (2014). Native and non-native English language teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open, 4(2), 2158244014534451.
Wallinger, L.M. 2008, 'The Role of Homework in Foreign Language Learning', Foreign Language Annals, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 483-496. Abstract
Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 60(2), 133-141.
Wilkinson, L., & Dallal, G.E. (1981). Tests of significance in forward selection regression with an F-to enter stopping rule. Technometrics, 23, 377–380.
Young, D.J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(iv), 426-439.